The L.A. Times has brought to prominence (and fallen for) what I call the “adaptation trap”:

The adaptation trap is the belief that 1) “it would be easier and cheaper to adapt than fight climate change” [as the Times puts it in the sub-head] and/or 2) “adaptation” to climate change is possible in any meaningful sense of the word absent an intense mitigation effort starting now to keep carbon dioxide concentrations below 450 ppm.

G. Gordon Liddy’s daughter repeated that standard denier/delayer line in our debate: Humans are very adaptable — we’ve adapted to climate changes in the past and will do so in the future.

What is the cost of “adaptation”? It is almost incalculable. The word is a virtually meaningless euphemism in the context of catastrophic global warming. That is what the deniers and delayers simply don’t understand. On our current emissions path, the country and the world faces faces multiple catastrophes, including:

Staggeringly high temperature rise, especially over land — some 10°F over much of the United States

Permanent Dust Bowls over the U.S. SW and many other heavily populated regions around the globe

Massive species loss on land and sea — 50% or more of all life

Unexpected impacts — the fearsome “unknown unknowns”

More severe hurricanes — especially in the Gulf

I think Hurricane Katrina gives the lie to the adaptation myth. No, I’m not saying humans are not adaptable. Nor am I saying global warming caused Hurricane Katrina, although warming probably did make it a more intense. But on the four-year anniversary of Katrina — and the three year anniversary of Climate Progress’s initial launch — I’m saying Katrina showed the limitations of adaptation as a response to climate change, for several reasons.

First, the citizens of New Orleans “adapted” to Hurricane Katrina, but I’m certain that every last one of them wishes we had prevented the disaster with stronger levees. The multiple catastrophes — extreme drought, extreme flooding, extreme weather, extreme temperatures — that global warming will bring can be suffered through, but I wouldn’t call it adaptation.

Second, a classic adaptation strategy to deal with rising sea levels is levees. Yet even though we knew that New Orleans would be flooded if the levees were overtopped and breached, even though New Orleans has been sinking for decades, we refused to spend the money to “adapt” New Orleans to the threat. We didn’t make the levees able to withstand a category 4 or 5 hurricane (Katrina was weaker at landfall than that, but the storm surge was that of a category 4).

Third, even now, after witnessing the devastation of the city, we still refuse to spend the money needed to strengthen the levees to withstand a category 5 hurricane. We refuse to spend money on adaptation to preserve one of our greatest cities, ensuring its destruction, probably sometime this century.

If we won’t adapt to the realities of having one city below sea level in hurricane alley, what are the chances we are going to adapt to the realities of having all our great Gulf and Atlantic Coast cities at risk for the same fate as New Orleans — since sea level from climate change will ultimately put many cities, like Miami, below sea level? And just how do you adapt to sea levels rising 6 to 12 inches a decade for centuries, which is the fate we risk by 2100 if we don’t reverse greenhouse gas emissions trends soon. Climate change driven by humans GHGs is already happening much faster than past climate change from natural causes — and it is accelerating.

But don’t be taken in by heartfelt expressions of faith in human adaptability. If Katrina shows us anything, it is that preventing disaster would be considerably less expensive — and more humane — than forcing future generations to “adapt to” an unending stream of disasters.

Finally, a major new study finds the cost of adaptation — and the costs of inaction — are far, far higher than anyone thought. Duh! Since it provides strong economic and analytical support for my analysis here, I will blog on it soon.

Katrina did not happen because of global warming. Katrina was a hurricane, they happen every year though we are seeing less storms than in the 50's. New Orleans was not flooded because of global warming. New Orleans is not a costal city so the millimeters of sea rise had nothing to do with that. The US Army Engineers knew the levees would not hold. They made recomendations, all were turned down. The one that would have saved New Orleans, a folding sea gate, was turned down by the EPA because it would have interferred with fish sex. So, New Orleans was flooded because of lack of money and environmental protests.
Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years, at a rate of millimeters per century, not inches per decade. The rise has nothing to do with C02 levels. It has to do with the fact that the water is no longer ice sheets over all of North America, South America. Australia, NZ, China and Europe. In fact the ice sheets covered all land up to the equator.
At some point the earth will enter another ice age. The sea level rise will stop then. However there will be no land to live on.
I detest this type of reporting. Please get your facts straight.

Posted by: Eve on 31 Aug 09

Right on to Eve. You thoroughly beat me to the punch. New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina are a false icon for Global Climate Change brought on by Al Gore's movie that has become hopelessly outdated.

Posted by: Steve on 31 Aug 09

Blah, Blah, Blah - here's a great example of scare tactics to pass certain agendas. "Hurricane Katrinas" have been occuring since the dawn of time. They have happened; they continue to happen; and they will certain happen in the future. If we proceed with our "cloud ship" idea, I bet they could happen even more with all the additional clouds in the ocean! LOL Nevertheless, people have been "warning" us of catastrophe for eons. BUT, "this" time is different say people like this author...yeah, ok...

Posted by: Troy on 1 Sep 09

Please note that comments will remain open for only 14 days after the article is posted. While previous comments will remain visible, attempts to post new comments after this period will fail. This helps stop comment spam, so your forebearance is appreciated.

The Worldchanging comments are meant to be used for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in our posts. Please note that, while constructive disagreement is fine, insults and abuse are not, and will result in the comment being deleted and a likely ban from commenting. We will also delete at will and without warning comments we believe are designed to disrupt a conversation rather than contribute to it. In short, we'll kill troll posts.

Finally, please note that comments which simply repost copyrighted works or commercial messages will be summarily deleted.